similar to: RFC: Extend UBSan with qsort checks

(+correct cfe-dev list) On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yury Gribov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer currently does not check for undefined >> behaviors which result from improper usage

Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker <https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h> ). On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 12,

On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library: > https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h > Search for "check sort predicate for strict weak ordering" Nice, although this wouldn't catch violations of transitivity (which is probably the most important type of bug).

On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: >> Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker). >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/13/2016

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Yury Gribov via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As for C++11, it has for e.g. srtd::sort: > > "Requires: operator< (for the version with no arguments) or comp (for the > version with a comparison argument) defines a strict weak ordering (25.4)." > > which also sounds like UB. Exactly correct. If your

I've been working on adding UBSan support to CMake (so that errors found by it can be uploaded to CDash for viewing). One problem is that the message is very generic. The patch here addes 'UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer' to the message so that they may be detected more easily. If something else is wanted (such as the '===' lines from ASan or TSan to cope with things like printing

I am building LLVM on OS X 10.7.5 with cmake. Under this configuration some ASan and UBSan tests are failing: $ make check-ubsan … ******************** Testing Time: 2.36s ******************** Failing Tests (11): UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Float/cast-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/add-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/div-zero.cpp

Some more information … On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Meador Inge wrote: > I am building LLVM on OS X 10.7.5 with cmake. Under this configuration some ASan and UBSan tests > are failing: > > $ make check-ubsan > > … > > ******************** > Testing Time: 2.36s > ******************** > Failing Tests (11): > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

I also encounter this issue and solved it locally by implementing this 2 functions. - The linux version of StartSymbolizerSubprocess uses only POSIX function and can be reused as is on OS X (maybe we should move it in a new sanitizer_symbolizer_posix.cc file) - I have a simple implementation of GetListOfModules (see the attached file) but it required 10.6 at least. That said, implementing this

Hi Evgeniy, So, to XFAIL some UBSAN failues, I found an issue: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp These two tests fail on that configuration, but pass when reversed. So, if I XFAIL: armv7l..., I get the following error: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer ::

Kostya, Christophe, I'm running the full tests on AARch64 and the only RT test that fails is: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Float/cast-overflow.cpp The problem seems to be a trap in __sanitizer::internal_memchr() while trying to handle __ubsan::__ubsan_handle_float_cast_overflow(). I haven't looked at it in detail, has anyone seen this? Is UBSan meant to run on

Hello, I have several low priority UBSan questions... (1) Is there a way for UBSan to print its output to a file that the user specified (e.g. via option) instead of dumping everything on stderr? (2) Out of curiosity, why is the name of the option for printing the stacktrace spelled "UBSAN_OPTIONS=print_stacktrace=1", though the allowed value is 1? Since the only one value is

Folks, As of this run: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/746 There are three classes of failures that need fixing before we get the bot green: 1. AddressSanitizer.BuiltinLongJmpTest Unit Test Two configurations fail: * Asan-arm-inline-Test * Asan-arm-with-calls-Test I wonder what's the best way to run it individually and reduce the error. I'm not

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org>wrote: > I also encounter this issue and solved it locally by implementing this 2 > functions. > > - The linux version of StartSymbolizerSubprocess uses only POSIX function > and can be reused as is on OS X (maybe we should move it in a new > sanitizer_symbolizer_posix.cc file) > - I have a

Okay, dropping gcc 4.4.3 makes sense. How do you feel about using clang 3.2 (and the upcoming 3.3) instead of tip-of-the-trunk clang? It looks like everything works great, but that you just need to make those UB tests 'unsupported' since they fail with "libclang_rt.ubsan was built without __int128 support". Thanks, Greg On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov

> Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I can, but digging deeper I see that the compiler-rt sanitizer tests depend on just-built-clang for its object instrumentation. The next time the instrumentation changes, I'd expect those tests to break. If the lit tests that require -fsanitize were moved to the clang repo, then I think it'd be safe to build compiler-rt with clang 3.3 or gcc

For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. Using a fixed version allows you to build all clang/llvm/compiler-rt with one compiler. It simplifies the build process quite a bit. Also better for isolating regressions in compiler-rt, especially if you use git-bisect. Greg On May 29, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > UBsan tests work

UBsan tests work for me when I run "check-ubsan" in both build trees (the one with gcc 4.6.3 as a host compiler, and the one with fresh Clang). It's pretty convenient for us to use fresh Clang to configure LLVM and compiler-rt. One major reason is that autoconf/make build system always builds compiler-rt with just-built Clang. There are other benefits, like keeping sanitizers code

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. > Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I think that the reason selected UBSan tests fail under clang 3.2 is a bug in Clang, which was fixed (Richard may correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really want to mark these tests as "failing